Thank you sincerely for those who have stood up for me in this arena. I am truly overwhelmed and quite humbled. Thank you.

I do not wish for there to be any ill-feeling created on my behalf however...and am willing as always to accept the consequences of my own thoughts and words. If AvidVisionary was standing right in front of me... I still would have said exactly what I wrote.... and been corrected if necessary by him if in fact my assertions were incorrect.... with an apology forthcoming from myself.

In this case I am neither a troll... nor did I consider I was derailing the thread because I questioned why the poster did not ask the artist for their technique.

As an artist I consider it inappropriate to copy.... (as in the act of placing it in this forum you most probably used "COPY and paste") in another arena work of another artist, without somewhere having an acknowledgement of who the artist is - regardless of one thinks the art is 'worthy' of being credited or not.

In my view...it would have been more appropriate to say.... "Here are some images from xxxxxx... how do you think they are done."

To flare up towards me so strongly I feel was very defensive and actually uncalled for. A simple "No Julie... I didn't think to credit them.... nor did I think to ask them... you are incorrect" I feel would have been more respectful and I would have immediately apologised. As the crew here know... i say things usually quite bluntly and openly.. and say thing show I see it. ... which is what I did above.

Thank you once again to those who have recognised my value, contribution and support I give to others here.

Julie

There are so many things in there for me to reply to but I won't. That's something for you to consider Julie. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.

There are so many things in there for me to reply to but I won't. That's something for you to consider Julie. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.

Just because you can post someone else's images doesn't mean you should. I'll go back to my original question. Have you approached the photographer themselves yet? Do they know you've posted their images without acknowledgement on another website?

On the troll front. How many images like these have you ever seen directly contributed by a member here? Nil approaching none I'd guess. Why would you ask a bunch of landscape, street or documentary photographers to help you with this?

Frankly, your ignorance is starting to irritate.Those reviewers either had to buy the product or the ticket to view, or they were given a free viewing or copy of the software, WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER. In neither case was copyright infringed.

You need to apologise, and the list is growing to whom you owe an apology.

Why don't you go and tell films and games reviews they can no longer review anything unless they ask permission from the person.

You just don't get it do you. It starts simply with attribution.

What would have made the difference in this thread is if you'd asked: "I really like the work of Tim Tadder, do you guys have any advice on achieving the same effect?", with maybe a couple of sample images linked back to his website.

But you couldn't be bothered. Show me a single legitimate example where a game or movie is reviewed without attribution. There wouldn't be a point would there.

Frankly, your ignorance is starting to irritate.Those reviewers either had to buy the product or the ticket to view, or they were given a free viewing or copy of the software, WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER. In neither case was copyright infringed.

You need to apologise, and the list is growing to whom you owe an apology.

You don't tell me what to do. This was between me and Julie. Nothing to do with you. You are the one being irritating by fueling the fire.

What would have made the difference in this thread is if you'd asked: "I really like the work of Tim Tadder, do you guys have any advice on achieving the same effect?", with maybe a couple of sample images linked back to his website.

Well if I didn't like the work I would not have posted it asking what is the workflow of something like this. What is the workflow of something like this = do you guys have any advice on achieving the same effect. Just because I did not word it to your liking and posted in your habit is not my concern.

I thought you said you don't want to be associated with me here? If Julie only knew you don't really care for her. You just pretend. You always enter peoples thread say something negative and then leave. You always post things publicly to be praised and given human recognition.

... I thought you said you don't want to be associated with me here? If Julie only knew you don't really care for her. You just pretend. You always enter peoples thread say something negative and then leave. You always post things publicly to be praised and given human recognition...

Oh, I do not mind being associated with you if it means standing up to your boorish behavior. The only reason I deleted my earlier posts, which is the first time I did something like this on LuLa, is that it might have given the impression that I am somehow supporting you. I usually try to give the benefit of the doubt to newbies and help them matter-of-factly. Unfortunately, that doubt was quickly dispelled.

As for your psychoanalysis of my postings in general, I will leave it to others to judge. However, I am (mildly) puzzled by the apparent contradiction in the last two sentences above: if I post to "be praised", wouldn't I then rather choose a non-confrontational strategy, instead of saying "something negative and then leave?"

Is your brain up your ass? Credit them for what, exactly? You know, I have had enough of people like you on here coming onto a thread and derailing it from the original question. Condemning the original poster for asking a question and then leaving it to ruin. You know, a troll.

Hoping that it will be addressed by someone other than Michael, I have reported this post to the moderators. Julie's sex is irrelevant; this appalling response has no place here.

AvidVisionary was impolitic. For that, LuLa bullied him. It would have been nice if he cited the artists of those works, but it was not required by copyright law. He responded with inappropriate and awkward anger. Slobodan, you initially defended him (correctly, I might add) regarding the Fair Use Doctrine, but rescinded your support because you didn't like his attitude.

AvidVisionary was impolitic. For that, LuLa bullied him. It would have been nice if he cited the artists of those works, but it was not required by copyright law. He responded with inappropriate and awkward anger...

... my personal opinion of the compassion and fairness of the LuLa community has been sorely compromised.

Impolitic?

Initially, I read that as "impolite" and thought "boy, that is one way to put it."

But then I noticed it is actually "impolitic," i.e., "unwise and not cautious." and again thought: note to myself... if I ever run a political campaign, I should surely approach Fike as my spin doctor, as you surely know a thing or two about euphemisms (this is meant as a friendly teasing, and not in a mean way, btw)

Bullied?

Julie and Rob expressed a legitimate concern (about crediting the author). A concern that, though not legally based, is shared by a significant number of authors. Julie and Rob expressed their opinion, which then can be (and was) debated, both on the merits of the fair-use doctrine and HDR esthetics (which you and I did), and that is what forum discussions are all about. But bullied? No way. Before the two entered, there were several helpful and matter-of-fact posts. So I would dare to say that before the OP exploded in a vulgar and boorish, bar-fight style (which would be galaxies away from "inappropriate and awkward anger," as you described it), it was a pretty decent and fair and balanced (pros vs. cons) internet debate.

Compassion?

There was plenty of it for the guy before he exploded (or shall I say imploded?). But I lost any appetite for compassion after it. I've been personally called names numerous times on these forums, and I never reported anyone, as I believe in "sticks and stones...," and can take it as a man-thing. I have no problem engaging in a bar-fight style rhetoric (not actual, though) with boys. However, and call me old-fashioned if you will, I have a visceral reaction to engaging a lady in a bar-fight. Definitely no compassion after that.

AvidVisionary was impolitic. For that, LuLa bullied him. It would have been nice if he cited the artists of those works, but it was not required by copyright law. He responded with inappropriate and awkward anger. Slobodan, you initially defended him (correctly, I might add) regarding the Fair Use Doctrine, but rescinded your support because you didn't like his attitude.

as Rob said,..and AvidVisionary wasn't either, but he clearly felt bullied when the educational intent of his innocent query was questioned.

LuLa is a fabulous photo resource that I will continue to use for my learning and advancement, but my personal opinion of the compassion and fairness of the LuLa community has been sorely compromised.

I think that's unfair, Marc. There's a difference, often these days underappreciated, between justified criticism and "bullying". The latter is a charge far too often bandied about, since it reverses the burden of reproof, attaching blame not to the wrongdoer but to those who point out the wrongdoing. It wasn't anger which has led to his departure; it was abuse. They're not the same thing, not past the age of five or so.

I reported him; I still feel that it was the correct thing to do. I'd expected at most a suspension for a period of time, but I don't know what passed in communication between AvidVisionary and Chris and I'm content to accept that Chris hasn't overreacted.